Downy or Hairy Woodpecker - USA - Northern IL (1 Viewer)

[jrcummins84]

Hey All,

I am trying to track down an identification for the woodpecker below, my thoughts based on exp was that this was a Hairy woodpecker. Im mostly basing this on the ratio between the beak and the head, so I am very open to being wrong. If you think otherwise please let me know how you came to the conclusion so I can learn. Thank you.

 

[Butty]

Hairy woodpecker (bill size) - even though, as far as I can tell, the black markings on the white outer tail-feathers ought to make it downy woodpecker, even in Illinois.

 

[qwerty5]

Hairy woodpecker (bill size) - even though, as far as I can tell, the black markings on the white outer tail-feathers ought to make it downy woodpecker, even in Illinois.

Yeah, conflicting field marks

 

[KC Foggin]

Downy for me with those tail markings

 

[connorco]

This has a Downy shape to it. It seems like it’s missing some feathers at the base of the bill making it look longer that it is. Beware though, because hybrids do occur and are underreported, though there wouldn’t be enough info in the photo to confirm it if it was one. It’s Downy though.

 

[AveryBartels]

I think the apparent long-billed look is down to it being very wet, damping down those feathers that would normally be covering the base of the bill. Another filed mark (in addition to the spotted outer tail feathers noted by others) that is supportive of Downy is that the red patch on the hind-crown is solid, rather than broken by a black line down the middle as in Hairy. This is a trait that can sometimes be obscured by feather placement, or when wet, as on this bird, but is something to look out for, if not always a totally reliable field mark.

 

[Butty]

red patch on the hind-crown is solid . . . if not always a totally reliable field mark.

I've looked for it often on photos in the past and found it unreliable.
In comparison with the leaves, etc (although it's not a tree species I know), and feeding on such small twigs, it does look like a small woodpecker.

 

[qwerty5]

I think the apparent long-billed look is down to it being very wet, damping down those feathers that would normally be covering the base of the bill.

I agree, I think this is a Downy.

 

[lmans66]

It appears small, so Downy.... hard to tell otherwise but definitely a bit 'mis-shoveled'.

 

[nartreb]

Here's another field mark (actually two) that can be very useful:
A new clue for identifying Downy and Hairy Woodpeckers - Sibley Guides

Less useful when the bird is wet and not seen at the ideal angle, but I'd say the third picture supports Downy. The thickness of the horizontal black band is hard to judge - looks thicker on one side than the other. But the white patches beneath are large and rectangular, without black intrusions from the shoulder.

 

[Butty]

another field mark (actually two)

I told a lie. Actually, these are the features I photo-tested years ago and found useless.

 

[Microtus]

I told a lie. Actually, these are the features I photo-tested years ago and found useless.

Where did you photo-test them? This blog entry is from last year, and is the second time David Sibley has posted about this very feature. (I suspect the entries are identical, but there was an blog post about this feature by him many years ago.)

 

[Butty]

Where did you photo-test them?

Umm... on photos.

there was an blog post about this feature by him many years ago

Quite.

 

[Microtus]

I see, upon looking at the comments section of Sibley's blog post, that it is the exact same post from 10 years ago, that for some reason says 2020 instead of 2011 right below the title. So he's only posted about it once.

I have tested this clue (as Sibley calls it) on photos and found it useful.
eta: I've also tested it in the field a few times and found it useful.

 

[Butty]

I have tested this clue (as Sibley calls it) on photos and found it useful.
eta: I've also tested it in the field a few times and found it useful.

...substantially more than 50% success then. Excellent. Experiences differ, of course.